MP Ratings / Challenge Matches Open Thread


PAPA Scoring Software is 99% there. It was good enough for me to force in the Pinburgh finals from 2017: – it’s pretty much the only Elwin result in the database though.

I had results from regular Pinburgh rounds in 2016 and 2017, but had to remove them again because something was breaking (it’s a fickle import). They’ll make a return shortly.

We’re almost there with DTM imports. Just need to talk about how to import the backlog of old results in the cleanest way. I’ll be following up with @kdeangelo soon. I didn’t want to bother him while he was trying to organize INDISC :slight_smile:


It’s done on the Match Play side, but I think Shepherd has been tied up with some IFPA $$$ prestige project these past months… :wink:


At this point things are implemented, we’re just busy thinking about where we’re gonna spend ALL THIS MONEY!!! :stuck_out_tongue:

Anyone opposed to me putting it all “on black” out in Vegas? We could double the prize pool for every state. What could go wrong?!?


I hear you should minimum bet the first time, then bet it all. Always goes lose, win, etc


Should be on red


Tried to submit the challonge for the RI SCS. Gave an error that there were fewer than two players.


@bondorew Whoops, that was my mistake. Try again! Sorry about that!


INDISC 2018 results are now included in Match Play Ratings. @kdeangelo is working on shoving results from previous tournaments using DTM in there so Elwin can be placed at a rank that @pinwizj finds acceptable. Elwin is currently ranked worse than Josh so something definitely needs to happen.




Hey Andreas, is there any way for me as the TD or a Scorekeeper to attach a picture to another competitor’s scores? In the regional league we have a few people who would rather send me a text or e-mail with their scores, and I’d like to be able to attach it to their entry so people have easy visibility into other people’s entries. I may just be missing something obvious, but I don’t see a way to do that.

If it’s not a current feature I’m happy to add it to UserVoice.


This is probably better suited for the Match Play Open thread and not the ratings thread :slight_smile:

There’s no way for a scorekeeper/TD to add a photo to a score. It was an oversight when I rushed to support selfie leagues. Place your vote here:


Apologies! Saw “MP”, “Open Thread”; made a post. Will read more carefully next time.


I should stop pasting links to specific feedback suggestions. There’s always a rush of votes artificially inflating the count. :wink:


If you’re pulling into match play the results of circuit-type playoffs, how do you handle the fact that everyone who made the playoffs outperformed everyone who didn’t? Are those players just omitted? So then MP only reflects how well a player does if they get to match play? If so, it’s very skewed.


I sense a misperception of what MP Ratings is. MP Ratings is a glicko system and only deals with match play situation where someone plays someone else (either an individual or a group).

Single player games cannot be rated because you didn’t play someone else. In best game tournaments your result is ranked against other players, but you can’t say you “beat” another player. IFPA ratings makes that assumption and it’s why IFPA ratings are highly volatile and often useless.

In the case of a best game tournament followed by match play finals, MP Ratings doesn’t say that players who played match play outperformed players who didn’t. All it says is that Player A beat Player B and Player C beat Player D (and so on for every match played).

Players who didn’t play any match play games are omitted because they didn’t play any games that can be rated. I fail to see how that can make anything skewed – trying to infer results based on the best game portion would duplicate all the problems with IFPA ratings. I’m never going down that route – IFPA ratings already exist.

The consequence for players who didn’t make it to finals are miniscule. Their rating deviation goes up by a small amount (same amount it goes up every day they don’t compete). Their rating stays the same because they didn’t play any rated matches.

That said: Finding yourself at INDISC on Sunday with no finals to compete in would be an excellent time to play some Challenge Matches against people you don’t compete against very often! Those matches will all affect your rating and you get to play lots of fun competition pinball!


@BMU we should have done challenge matches on Jungle Queen since we didn’t do money dollars or whatever it’s called like Jonny and Andrei did :slight_smile:


This has always been my biggest issue with the accuracy of this kind of ranking system. Specifically players that play in big events, often make it to finals rounds, and often get bounced early. At face value they “suck” because all they do is lose to other players . . . when in reality they have proven to be better skilled at pinball than all of those players never qualifying for the finals of these events to begin with.

We definitely try to capture the competition between two players at the “macro” level, and I feel the metric actually does a pretty good job at representing the skill level of that player with respect to their peers. At this point I would put this metric up against any Glicko style head-to-head metric with respect to it’s uselessness :wink:


That’s exactly my point. People in the top 250 but not in the top 25 are the most likely to be in this situation - - better than most other players, but not as good as the top tier of eventual tournament winners. And not everyone wants to play “challenge matches.” That seems more for the “trash talk” crowd.

< That said: Finding yourself at INDISC on Sunday with no finals to compete in would be an excellent time to play some Challenge Matches against people you don’t compete against very often! Those matches will all affect your rating and you get to play lots of fun competition pinball! >

But if you’re running Finals (or in the “B” division or …).

Note that the “effective pct” statistic is subject to skewing, albeit far less severe, since it does not take “strength of field” into consideration. It’s far easier to have a 40% rating if you play mostly events where the top players are absent. Compare the Seattle or Chicagoland league to Birmingham’s Tilt league, for instance.


I think you overestimate the amount of “suck”. If you play one round in a PAPA bracket it’s unlikely that you’re seen by glicko as having lost all your matches. You’d literally have to lose three four-player games in a row to receive all losses. In most cases you’d be beating some opponent some of the time. For example Elwin at INDISC was eliminate in the first round of finals, but he actually went 2-2 against all opponents ( and his rating increased as a result!

Since MP Ratings only looks at actual games played your rating won’t move much up or down if you’re eliminated after a single round of finals simply because you didn’t play that many games.

I think the WPPR Rankings does an excellent job at ranking players! I think the IFPA Ratings are not a very good way to measure player ratings (because of the volatility and simulated h-t-h records). I firmly believe that a combination of WPPR ranking style ranking along with glicko ratings based on actual head to head records will produce an even better ranking for pinball players.


You’re assuming that every tournament is a “best game + match play final” type structure. I’m sure Josh can provide numbers, but my gut feeling is that there are far more events that are match play all the way through.